Oh well, I guess Rohan has decided to stand me up for the opening of our debate. As I haven't heard from him regarding his preference of posting order, I guess I'll go ahead and make my opening post.
In answering the question at hand for this debate between myself and Rohan, I felt that of all the questions I have had to debate thus far in this competition, this one was the clearest and easiest decision to make. Should the WWE give the professional wrestling fans a completely unexpected, "underdog" winner of the Royal Rumble event? And I feel that
yes, the WWE should absolutely do so. And now I'll tell you why.
[size=+2]
Main Event??? [/size]
There once was a time when the winner of the annual Royal Rumble match was a very big deal. After all, whoever emerged victorious from this multiple competitor, over the top rope spectacular, was automatically in the main event of Wrestlemania of that same year. A victory ensured being in the most prominent match of the most prominent show in the most prominent professional wrestling organization in existence. But can anyone really claim that to be the case anymore? Well, look at it like this.
In 2012, Sheamus won the Royal Rumble. This automatically earned him a spot in the main event of Wrestlemania 28, right?
So who was it that was in the "main event" of the evening? Was it the Royal Rumble winner? Not by a long shot. In fact, what was the reward for being the Royal Rumble winner in 2012?
My point? Selecting a Royal Rumble winner who was an established superstar who entered the event as one of the favorites actually contributed very little to the subsequent PPV. Had the WWE chosen to award the victory to an underdog, to someone totally unexpected, there would have been absolutely no negative impact on Wrestlemania. Why not shock the world and have someone unconventional win the Royal Rumble? While it would not have added to the actual WM show itself, it certainly would have been no worse than what went down. Imagine the response if Santino Marella, for example, had won the Royal Rumble. This would have electrified those watching the Royal Rumble, and given everyone a feel good moment and injected some shock value into a product which many people classify these days as becoming stale. Whether the underdog went on to later win or lose would be irrelevant, as they were fourth in prominence on the card in the first place.
I realize that Sheamus did win the WHC at WM28 in near record time, but I feel this has done little for him ever since, and a different result with a different Royal Rumble winner would have been just as effective. Am I right about this? Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!
In 2011, Alberto Del Rio won the Royal Rumble, so he's in the main event of Wrestlemania last year, right?
So who's missing from the promotional picture? The main event of the evening was the Miz versus John Cena, with the Rock as the special guest referee. Also higher on the card was Triple H versus the Undertaker, with the hype about the streak being far more significant than ADR. Hell, it even seemed to me that there was nearly as much talk about Snooki as there was about Alberto Del Rio. And for the record, Del Rio lost to Edge that night, the same Edge who retired due to injury pretty much immediately afterwards. Can anyone tell me that WM27 would have suffered at all if someone else, anyone else, had won last year's Royal Rumble? I would respectfully suggest that an underdog winner, someone totally unexpected, could have won the Royal Rumble last year. Again, at least they would have injected some new life into the situation and created a buzz at the Rumble, whereas ADR created nothing except chirping crickets.
How about WM26 in 2010? Was Edge, that year's Rumble winner, in the main event that year? Or was it:
An underdog, someone completely unexpected, could have and probably should have won the Royal Rumble that year, again providing the benefit of a surprise result to keep the fans off guard, without compromising the main event of the evening at WM in any way, as they weren't in the main event either way. After all:
It could just as easily have been someone else, some underdog, in this picture, as opposed to Edge, couldn't it? Another loss by another Royal Rumble winner. Why not excite the audience with an underdog victor at the Royal Rumble, if the end result was simply going to be a loss in the middle of the pack in terms of overall significance on the card at Wrestlemania?
Wrestlemania 25?
Again, there's your main event. Sure, Randy Orton won the Rumble, but I would suggest that he was not in the main focus of the evening at WM. And yet again, the Royal Rumble winner lost, this time to Triple H. Some underdog could have been chosen to be defeated by Triple H at this show, and there would have been no negative impact upon WM that year.
Wrestlemania 24?
Cena won the Royal Rumble that year, but he chose to cash it in before Wrestlemania. Yes, he ended up in a title match, but not directly because of his Royal Rumble victory. And the major focus of the night?
Again, someone else could have won the Royal Rumble that year too. Why not someone unexpected?
Wrestlemania 23?
Taker won the Royal Rumble that year. This guaranteed him a title shot at WM, and bearing the streak in mind, it was hardly shocking that he went on to win the title on the grandest stage of them all. This was one year that perhaps, an underdog would not have been a great choice to win the Royal Rumble. However, someone else could have won the Rumble that year, and Taker could have gotten his title shot by other means.
We can continue this onwards and onwards but the point is still the same. At Wrestlemania 22, who won the Royal Rumble? The ultimate underdog of the WWE: Rey Mysterio. What did we see for pretty much the only time in seven years? An underdog winner of the Royal Rumble, go on to win the title at Wrestlemania. And as I recall it, it was pretty successful. Ask JGlass if you don't believe me. Or check it out yourself:
My point in all of this is simple. An underdog winner of the Royal Rumble can work and it can be a successful decision. While time and time again it has been shown that going with someone who is not an underdog, does not always result in success. And in many if the above examples, choosing an underdog winner of the Rumble would have had no negative impact on the ultimate development of the Wrestlemania which followed it. There was no reason why an underdog winner could not have been chosen in any of these years for the sole purpose of exciting the crowd, and injecting some freshness into a sometimes stale product. All of this being said, why not try it some year? Pick a Zack Ryder, or a Santino Marella, or someone else unexpected to win the Royal Rumble? As I see it, there's no down side to it, but there could be the potential of a significant upside.
[size=+2]
Recent Results [/size]
I touched on some of this above, but history has shown that recent Royal Rumble winners have not been successful at the Wrestlemania that followed it. Sure, this year was an exception, with Sheamus winning, but the benefit of him winning, in the manner that he did, is questionable. I mean, who came away from WM28 looking better, the Royal Rumble winner, or Daniel Bryan? Do I need to chant again? Someone else, some underdog, could have won the Rumble, and with the way this went down and with the other matches on the card, no one would have cared.
As stated above, look at recent Royal Rumble winners and how they fared:
ADR: won the Rumble, lost at WM in 2011
Edge: won the Rumble, lost at WM in 2010
Orton: won the Rumble, lost at WM in 2009
Cena: won the Rumble, lost in 2008 (prior to Wrestlemania)
Taker: won the Rumble in 2007. Duh.
Mysterio: won in 2006. An underdog who won WM that year.
So we had an underdog Rumble winner in 2006 go on to WM that year and experience success. This was followed by an obvious Taker WM win in 2007. Then we see four years in a row where the Rumble winner lost at Wrestlemania; either of those guys could have been replaced by an underdog winner, adding to the Royal Rumble via shock value, surprise, and a lack of staleness, without detracting from WM whatsoever.
[size=+2]
Other Means[/size]
As stated previously, there was once far more prestige and significance associated with the winning of the Royal Rumble. However, since the brand split, the winner of the Rumble gets to choose which belt he goes after. Of course, we all know in reality, this means the WWE brass chooses which belt the winner of the Rumble pursues. So as we have seen ample examples of above, winning the Rumble does not mean you go after the major belt. After all, if that were the case, Sheamus would have gone after Punk and his WWE Championship belt as opposed to the undeniably second place World Heavyweight Championship belt. Either way, he still would not have been in the main event this year, but he would have been higher up in significance on the card, and probably would not have opened the show in an 18 second match.
And then of course, there's this:
[Yt]xnDCJ6sq9kQ[/MEDIA]
The very existence of the Money In The Bank briefcase stipulation has cheapened the significance of winning the Royal Rumble. Whether it be in a match at Wrestlemania, whereby one winner in a multi person match gets a title shot within the next calendar year, or whether it be a separate PPV in and of itself, the prize is still the same. Point being, there are now other ways to guarantee yourself a title shot at Wrestlemania, over and above winning the Rumble. An underdog could win the Rumble and excite the fans, and if turns out to be the wrong choice, the MITB winner can just take things away from him again. As I see it, minimal risk but with possible great reward for taking a shot on allowing an underdog winner of the Royal Rumble.
[size=+2]
"But It's So Stale!!"[/size]
The chief complaint amongst so many of the whiny critics of the WWE product, especially amongst the IWC, is that the product has gotten stale and predictable. Sometimes this is a legitimate beef, whereas other times it's simply a matter of people never being satisfied. Super Cena always wins!! Triple H never puts anyone else over!! Blah blah blah. How better to throw a monkey wrench into all of the whining of the disillusioned fans but to have some totally unexpected underdog prevail in a significant matchup such as the Royal Rumble. Of course, they'll still find something else to complain about, but even still, it could inject some new life into the product, giving a result that absolutely no one could see coming.
And don't forget, even if some unexpected underdog were to prevail at the Royal Rumble, and even if the powers that be chose to gamble on him even further by having him win unexpectedly at Wrestlemania, bear this in mind. There is a solution that comes approximately a month after Wrestlemania which can undo any damage done in a gamble of this nature:
[Yt]YIO67UJ9Qto[/MEDIA]
After all, had the WWE chosen to go with an underdog winner of the Royal Rumble event this year, and if he had gone on to win a belt on the grandest stage of them all, and if WWE really regretted the decision, it could easily be rectified at Extreme Rules, and this guy would be more than able to do the job:
[Yt]vne8ACOTmw0[/MEDIA]
And by the way, if the rumors are true and things play out as many of us think, who do you think will be main eventing Wrestlemania 29 next year, the winner of the Royal Rumble, or the guy pictured just above? Yet another example of the winner of the Royal Rumble playing second fiddle to some other superstar in some other match. If this is ultimately going to happen anyway, why not get as much mileage as possible from the Royal Rumble winner, at the Royal Rumble PPV itself, rather than once again, give the victory to the same old same old, who will end up in the long and broad shadow of Brock Lesnar anyway.
Now, over to you Rohan my friend. If you decide to grace us with your presence, that is!
